Talk:Linguistic imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

...linguistic relativity, which is the theory that unique and distinct languages create unique and distinct ways of perceiving and thinking. (See Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis). This idea has largely been undermined, due to its implied assumptions about cultures and their correlating value judgements. ...Is this wishful thinking? Can something more concrete be built out of this rather generic whine? What are these 'assumptions'? How are they 'implied?' Undermined? How? By whom? What's a 'value judgment' to do with this? Isn't 'linguistic relativity' the central problem every translator wrestles with? 'Unique and distinct languages create unique and distinct ways of perceiving and thinking:' how can such an obvious and tame cliché raise such fears!. Wetman 09:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree. This article clearly has a POV, and is also clearly lacking overall. I edited a bit, removed some POV, and hope it makes a bit more sense. Trouble is, I came to it because I WANTED info on the subject, not because I had much, so I can't personally do a lot more to fix it at the moment JackLynch 04:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An anonymous islamist user erased the existing text and substituted this:

Linguistic Imperialism may be subsumed under the broader phenomenon of culture imperialism. The term has recently assumed significant currency particularly in the field of English applied linguistics. Robert Phillipson's groundbreaking book 'Linguistic Imperialism' published by Oxford University Press has been largely responsible for popularising the term in recent years. Phillipson's theory of linguistic imperialism draws mainly on Gramscian social theory and where the spread of English is maintained through a series of complex hegemonic processes which sustain the preeminence of English at the expense of marginalising local/regional/national languages. TESOL Islamia. Visit www.tesolislamia.org for further discussions.

Anything to keep? Wetman 16:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Revert

What’s going on? Why are those two versions so different? They need merged or something. Sam [Spade] 21:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have carefully edited all the recent work that has been done in good faith. Comparing the "two versions" shows that almost all the "short" version is in the "long" version. Isn't that pretty much so, folks? The 'short" version even suppresses useful links. I have tried to keep it all descriptive and structural: how things work not moaning about how they should be. Any issues? Can we start to build on what is here, instead of quickly suppressing level-headed axiomatic factual statements we just don't like? Too much time is invested here by adults. Why is there nothing here about Turkish/Kurdish, history of Russian/Ukrainian? If it's only about English-language linguistic imperialism, why then the agenda is pretty visible isn't it? Don't we want to cover our agenda slightly? How about some External Links here? Wetman 00:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's a sentence:

Since the early 90s the term "linguistic imperialism" has assumed significant currency particularly in the field of English applied linguistics. What's the one word that is structurally irrelevant in this sentence? Does it not inadvertently reveal a hidden private agenda? Would not the sentence gain accuracy breadth and truth if that one word were omitted? This text was filled with such dishonest landmines. I have worked to strip out many of them, infuriating our anonymous islamist censor. Wetman 00:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you edit from the point I finished my contribution otherwise feel free to revert to any edition prior to 19 July. Then perhaps we might be able to move on and consider your "objective" additions.

(If this anonymous vandal, 213.42.2.23, had read the current edited version, it would realize that this step has already been taken. All moderately neutral and useful material from the version (which was advertising this islamist website: http://www.tesolislamia.org/) has already been incorporated, as a comparison of the Wikipedia version with the "little" version would reveal.)

I removed this section:

"Right-wing Christian groups (particularly missionaries) who see English as the language of the Bible and who would like to see a reversal of the curse of Babel are also likely to be repulsed by Phillipson’s theory. Others in this category may include White supremacists, Neocons and nostalgic colonialists like the prominent British historian, Paul Johnson."

Largely because it is wildly inaccurate. Can you show me five groups, worldwide, no matter how small, who believe that "English is the language of the Bible" or that English was spoken before the Tower of Babel? Actually you have the bias precisely wrong - Christian groups are some of the most active supporting little-known languages. Islam, if I remember rightly, insists that the Arabic version of the Koran is the only true one.

Is it only Right-wing Christian groups who are repulsed by Phillipson? What about left-wing Christian groups, or was "right wing" just tagged on by reflex?

DJ Clayworth 18:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a few more problems with this article - what is the evidence that most of the moderate proponents of linguistic imperialism are liberal humanists? Are none of them conservative? How about communists? They have hardly been vigorous in the defence of multiculturalism. And humanist? One the articles the anonymous author references is about Christian groups (allegedly) engaging in linguistic imperialism. Are atheists all multiculturalists?

What the article badly needs is a description of some of these theories; not just 'X describes the reasons why English is dominant' but 'X says that the reasons English is dominant is...'. We also need some non-English examples. I'm sure there are other places where linguistic cultural domination has been practiced on a local level by non-English speakers. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To anonymous contributor. You appear to have reverted several changes of mine with no explanation. If you have an answer to the points I made here, and then please write it here. If you have a good point then there will be no problem in backing up your claims. Whether you have or not, many of the changes I made were sensible ones that improved the style. Please note that a) reversion without explanation is considered a breach of etiquette b) more than three reversions in a day is vandalism. DJ Clayworth 18:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read the article you reference before I made my points above. The reasons I don't consider it justification for what you say are:

  1. It's not actually about Christians using language as a tool of linguistic imperialism - its about Christians using the teaching of English as a tool for evangelism;
  2. It says nothing about the politics of the groups involved - right wing, left wing or centre;
  3. There is absolutely no indication in it that the groups consider 'English to be the language of the Bible'
  4. There is no absolutely mention of 'reversing the curse of Babel'.

If you wish to make more points, discuss them here. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That makes three reverts to a disputed version with no explanation on the talk page. Unless you wish to deny that all these reversions are yours, the next reversion will result in a ban. Of course you still have the option to communicate - just explain what you are doing on this page and we may be able to sort this out. DJ Clayworth 19:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some Disputed Text

Rick deleted the following:

Linguistic Imperialism is a phenomenon that may be subsumed under the broader rubric of cultural imperialism. Since the early 90s the term has assumed significant currency particularly in the field of English applied linguistics. Robert Phillipson's influential book 'Linguistic Imperialism' published by Oxford University Press has been largely responsible for popularising the term. Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism as ‘the dominance asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages’. His influential theory of linguistic imperialism draws mainly on Galtung's imperialism theory, Gramscian social theory and in particular Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony. Phillipson’s theory provides a powerful critique on the historical spread of English as an international language and how it continues to maintain its current dominance particularly in postcolonial contexts like India, Pakistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc but also increasingly in ‘neo-colonial’ contexts such as continental Europe

It's a good idea to explain one's deletions in a way that other contributors can understand. We can't all hack away at this article and hope to create anything of lasting value that way. -- Uncle Ed 20:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


- The point about Christian missionaries does not refer to ALL missionaries. Note that the modifier "likely" is used and refers only to those Christians who see English as the language of the Bible in much the same way Christian missionaries employed English in colonial times. My point is that given the influence nowadays of the Christian Right on US politics (and by extension international politics) there are some Christians (i.e. Billy Graham) who see English as a powerful medium through which to evangelise. Yes, they are able to do this through minority languages but the task is made much simpler if everyone spoke English. This is how linguistic imperialism can make - and has done so in the past - the mission of spreading he Gospel far easier.

- The typology on how different groups relate to or define linguistic imperialism is by no means a comprehensive treatment. It's simply provided to help in understanding the usage of the term. +


Glad you finally decided to communicate. Please note that it's good Wikipedia procedure to sign your posts on talk pages - you can do this by typing four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~.

What you wrote on this page is much better than what you wrote in the article (that's why talking is good). However even what you write here has problems.

Sure, Christian evangelism would be easier if everyone spoke English. So would international trade, government, peacekeeping, the United Nations and Islamic evangelism. Linguistic imperialism would make all of their lives easier - that doesn't mean they are engaging in it. Bily Graham prefers to evangelise in English because that is his native language. Others prefer to evangelise in Portuguese, Dutch or Swahili. Many others prefer to evangelise in the native tongues of the people they are trying to reach - which is why Christians are engaging in a massive translation effort into the minority languages of the world. There are some languages with only a few hundred speakers where Christians are the only people translating and writing it.

DJ Clayworth 20:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are those who claim that certain concepts such as the ideals of the American Founding are better expressed in English. I forget his name, but one emigrant from Eastern Europe advocates the learning of English because it accelerates the process of assimilating into American culture. And think about Orwell's newspeak idea, a language designed to suppress rebellious thought. --Uncle Ed 21:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to WP. Will sort out how it all works in due course.

In response to your comments. I fear you are being overly defensive here and losing the thread of the discussion. The entry is about LI. I simply point out that different political/minority orientations will determine your proximity to the term. Some Christian evangelists will invariably welcome LI. If Christianity was a religion confined to Sri Lanka and all Christians spoke Tamil they may well take a different view toward English linguistic imperialism. Evangelising in say Serbo-Croat does not amount to linguistic imperialism because it does not involve a powerful language with a powerful army. (unsigned)

Please sign your posts on talk pages. I've explained how to do this above.

I totally agree with your point that ones attitude to linguistic imperialism will depend on your relationship with the language doing the imperialising. No problem there. I'm sure some Christian evangelists will welcome Linguistic imperialism - or at least welcome a move towards a widespread understanding of English. I'm also sure that some government ministers, international businessmen, aid workers, Islamic evangelists, science fiction authors and tourists will also welcome this. By selecting Christian evangelists rather than any of the other groups you gave the impression that Christians were more likely to be linguistic imperialists than other groups. More to the point, what you actually wrote was just plain wrong. However since you seem to have stopped reverting the article I'm happy to let this matter drop. Let’s move on to something else. DJ Clayworth 14:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No! I'm not reverting because I couldn’t be bothered... (unsigned)

Well, someone reverted and twice, and to exactly the same version that you (whoever you are) reverted to four times yesterday. I'm going to recuse myself because I was involved with the editing, but my suggestion is that the next admin who sees this either blocks the IPs doing the reversion or protects the page. Oh, and sign your posts by the way. Four tildes. ~~~~ DJ Clayworth 17:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration Hints

DJ, please re-read Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies and then consider whether it's really necessary to insist on "unsigned" signing his talk page comments.

Unsigned, thank you for discussing your changes.

Both of you, I'm still not clear on what linguistic imperialism is supposed to be, even though I took a guess at it yesterday. Would the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945) be an example? They made Koreans adopt Shinto and abandon Christianity and required all schools to conduct classes in Japanese. Was the insistence on Japanese intended to facilitate the conveyance of Japanese culture and to aid in suppressing Korean culture? In other words, in LI mainly a component of cultural imperialism? -- Uncle Ed 15:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Anon

You seem to have started reverting to the version you prefer again, and ignoring eveyone else's input. Let me please explain some things about Wikipedia to you. Creating an article is a collaborative exercise. If you just keep insisting that your version is best, with no discussion, then we cannot make any progress. Please look at some of the helpful suggestions that have been made by several people, not just myself, about how you could improve the article. Your edits are undoing other people's contributions and not allowing them any say in the way the article grows. I don't just mean my contributions, but others too. Do you really think that nobody has anything to say on this subject except you? DJ Clayworth 21:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yo, DJ!

FYI, in the book you cite, David Crystal endorses a two pronged approach: a global language and preservation of multilingualism. You are right that he rejects LI but not in the way you suggest. DC has been accused of intellectual naivety in not accounting for the political contexts in which English operates.

That's good. You're communicating again. Now what I'm going to do here is rewrite the current version to take account of your points. That's the way we do things here. It leaves in contributions made by other people and advances the article. DJ Clayworth 13:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you disagree with the definition, then write a new one. All your version says is that it is a 'phenomenon under the general rubric of Cultural imperialism' (Are you aware that you are implying that Linguistic imperialism is accidental - if something is deliberate it is not a phenomenon). If you have better definition please feel free to give it. Please don't just change the entire article back to what you originally wrote.

Incidentally, do you agree with my summary of Phillipson's book? DJ Clayworth 18:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LI is a social phenomenon; in Gramscian terms, power is exercised through cultural hegemony; oppressed people have internalised the discourses of the powerful; nobody is suggesting LI is accidental; u r crucially misreading; Saying LI is 'cultural dominance by means of language' is facile and misframes the whole idea of LI; your comment @ Phillipson's book is totally wrong; the idea of elitism is not the MAIN part of the book

BTW, Phillipson is a personal friend... (anon)

OK, good. My trouble with your version is that "power is exercised through cultural hegemony" does not, I believe, give a clear idea of what is going on. What kind of hegemony? How does the hegemony work? We are writing for people who don't know about Linguistic imperialism, so it needs to be kept simple. Nor do they know what 'Gramascian terms' are - they need to be explained too. If elitism is not the main part of Phillipson's book, then what is? Please make these mods to the version of the article that includes contributions from other people. If you just change it back to the first version you wrote you are denying everybody else the chance to contribute. I understand you are new to Wikipedia - I'm trying to explain how things are done here. DJ Clayworth 12:48, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


DJ, you make some valid points; before you revert can we get past at least one hurdle:

What is imperialism? Is it dominance, a phenomenon, a system, a policy, a series of methods.... the OED defines imperialism as

1. An imperial system of government; the rule of an emperor, esp. when despotic or arbitrary. 2. The principle or spirit of empire

my problem with "dominance" is that it doesn't give the whole picture... imperialism as I see it is a complex of a whole series of policies, mechanisms, assumptions that assert power and exercise control and influence over subjugated peoples... imperialism also involves complicity on the part of oppressed people (an important component)... that's why I chose phenomenon... we have to quote Gramsci because it is absolutely fundamental...

Let’s resolve this issue, and then we can talk about linguistic imperialism (anon)

That definition sounds good. How about we start the article with "Linguistic imperialism is defined as those policies, mechanisms or assumptions that control and influence peoples by means of language."? We can add the point about complicity later in the article. Why don't you make a change that reflects this? DJ Clayworth 16:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In LI, the focus is NOT on language as a "means" of imperialism but rather language as the "object" of imperialism... so in a given country, group X holds power and says that language X is the language of state, media, education etc where languages Y, Z, A, and B are to be deemed dialects, sublanguages, minority languages, inferior, backwards languages etc, etc..... In the real world, English plays this role which it achieves through a complex of a whole series of policies, mechanisms, assumptions that exercises power and control over less powerful language groups

In the USA, Spanish is object of English linguistic imperialism....

OK, how about: "Linguistic imperialism is the imposition of a language on a people, or the subjugation of other languages, by those with political power." DJ Clayworth 21:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Yes, but imperialism is not simply an imposition... imperialism is a system, practice, policy of exercising power by allocating resources to certain languages... that’s why I like the word phenomenon

Linguistic imperialism can also work in ways where certain groups are "denied" dominant languages often leading to their marginalisation from mainstream society. So, Power is NOT simply imposition; it can also be denial (anon)

That's what I meant when I wrote "or the subjugation of other languages". Maybe "suppression" would be better. The trouble with the word 'phenomenon' here is that it covers everything, but tells us nothing. To say something is a 'phenomenon' really just means 'it happens'. Suppose we substitute "suppression" for "subjugation" above. Does that work? DJ Clayworth 13:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's STILL problematic; we then get into an "either or" situation which frankly sets up a false dichotomy... there's a huge range of mechanisms, positions, assumptions that simply get left out by saying imposition and suppression... I think we have to frame this right in the opening paragraph... being broad and vague is not such a bad idea in defining what we later go on to say is a problematic/slippery concept with divergent political takes (anon).

What we need is an opening sentence that gives an idea of what Linguistic imperialism is about. It doesn't have to describe the concept in detail, just give the general idea. 'Subsumed under the rubric of cultural imperialism' doesn't even tell us it’s about language (we have to guess that from the name). It also doesn't make it clear whether we mean repression of language, or repression of peoples by means of language. (You told me the answer above, but the article doesn't make it clear). Once we've got a good opening sentence we can then go into more detail in the opening paragraph; mention how both the suppression and promotion can happen together, give examples and so on. Subsequent paragraphs can go into more detail still, talk about the mechanisms, positions and assumptions. DJ Clayworth 16:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I'm waiting for your reply here, may I mention a few other points? We need some examples of linguistic imperialism. So far we only mention English, and in general terms. I'm going to suggest some specifics:

  • Suppression of Gaelic by the British in Ireland
  • How did the Russians treat minority languages in the Soviet era?
  • Native American languages
  • How about the countries that Japan occupied?

Maybe we could also look at the unifying effect of language, like English in India? DJ Clayworth 16:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I sort of agree with your concerns in your penultimate posting. My concerns are that the LI has currency in certain restricted contexts and by a certain group pf people that broadly fall into AT LEAST two categories: 1. socialists/communists/Marxists, neo-Marxists etc 2. oppressed minority language users in former colonies, third 'developing world; any opening definition must include this

George W Bush, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld are unlikely to use or share an understanding of the term....

In answer to your latter point:

Case 1: suppression of Gaelic has everything to do with English LI Case 3: also

Cases 2 and 4: we have to be careful about using Anglo-Saxon concepts to define language related phenomena in different cultural contexts; different cultures invariably have different ways of formulating and framing issues; LI has really got to be seen within the context of English; LI was coined in English, with English in mind... we don’t want to be guilty of cultural imperialism by suggesting that what's happening in Japan, China is what we call LI unless of course it involves English

I disagree about the definition. You don't have to agree with something to share a definition of it. For example Bush, Murdoch, Gorbachev and Lenin would probably all broadly agree with a definition of what communism was, but would disagree over whether it was an effective form of government. Likewise we can agree with on a definition of linguistic imperialism without having to get everyone to agree on whether it actually occurs. We have to start with a definition in order to discuss it. I suggest putting in one of the ones above and see if anyone disagrees with it.

On the examples, I agree that most people will think of this in terms of English. But that doesn't mean the concept is restricted to English. I would expect the same mechanisms to be working in any part of the world where a non-native language is either imposed or preferred. The concept may have a different name in the languages in question, but it's OK for us to call it linguistic imperialism in the English language encyclopedia.

More importantly even if we stick to English-related examples we need to explain what was done to impose English or suppress the others, or what mechanisms led to this if it wasn't deliberate.

Why don't you pick one of the definitions I suggest above and insert it in the start of the article? DJ Clayworth 21:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hang on a sec; saying that defining communism is like defining LI is a total non sequitur; communism is a stated ideology with a clear set of principles; imperialism is an accusatory term for a perceived phenomenon; nobody really espouses imperialism; it's a bit like defining terrorism i.e. the definition depends on who's doing the defining....

the concept of linguistic imperialism strictly speaking is a western concept and for our purposes an English language one; to say its a universal concept sounds terribly Anglo-centric to me; as i said, cultures define things in their own ways... the idea that there has got to be a ONE to ONE correspondence between different cultures is ironically a manifestation of a cultural imperialist mindset.. a bit like some Americans who think everyone is essentially the same as "us" underneath once you get rid of all that cultural mumbo jumbo....

I don't see that LI is restricted to being a western concept. If the same phenomenon occurred in other languages, then the concept is relevant to them too. Otherwise it's like saying the concept of imperialism is only relevant to Britain, and ignoring all the other empires. Unless Phillipson defines LI as being only relevant to English, in which case we should say so. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, DJ and anon's, I took my biweekly crack at cleaning up the article text. I think it would help if we made the External links into internal links. I'd like to see either an article on Robert Phillipson or his book.

Generally, when writing an article about an author's book, you don't have to include so much about other writer's disagreements with his ideas. So that article should be easier to write. --Uncle Ed 13:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thank you Ed. I agree with what you've said here, and I agree with what you did to the article. I'm happy to use your version as the starting point for future changes. DJ Clayworth 16:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic Imperialism as an Existing Construct

Ed. CORRECTION: this article is NOT simply an article about an author's book; linguistic imperialism is a construct that predates and goes beyond the book; the author been instrumental in POPULARISING the term in his bookof the same title.

I agree with you, Anonymous. And I think it will help tremendously if we make a distinction between (a) the views of Phillipson and (b) the general concept of linguistic imperialism.
What do people in general believe about linguistic imperialism? How did the concept originate? What are some easily-understood examples? Are there any rebuttals to these examples? Who says L.I. is nonsense, and why? --Uncle Ed 13:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)\

REVERTING

Examples of linguistic dominance show serious lack of understanding of LI. Simple dominance or prominence does not amount to LI. There is no sense of 'empire' here; no sense of controlling or asserting power over language(s) (anon)

OK, now things seem to have calmed down again, let me ask a question that hasn't been satisfactorily answered. The article mentions "Right-wing Christian Groups who see English as the language of the Bible and want to reverse the curse of Babel". I still don't know who these groups are. I don't know of any myself, and the norm these days is for missionaries overseas to work in the native language. Now there is a link to an article called "Teaching English as a Missionary Language" which documents some groups who use TESL as a part of evangelistic work. However these groups don't appear to be engaging in Linguistic imperialism as defined in this article. Their primary purpose is not to teach English or suppress other languages - their purpose is evangelism, and any effect on the language is very much secondary. We've defined Linguistic imperialism as the suppression or promotion of language, not using language for other forms of imperialism.

Can we name any group that considers "English is the language of the Bible"? I can't think of any, with the possible exception of a very few British Israelists. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks now and no one has come forward with an example so I've removed the claim. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Clear and Pure POV

The head of the article is all about stating that people who disagree with the concept of the existence of linguistic imperialism are linguistic imperialists themselves. This makes it ridiculously clear the guy writing the article is a Phillipson's partisan. How about rewriting it as in "Phillipsonians would view as moderate linguistic imperialists people like so and so, who tend to view linguistic imperialism as conspiracy theory". Spharion 11:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to amend it. This article hasn't been touched in a long while, so a rewrite in more neutral terms would be welcome. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Recent changes

After having a look at the article and the discussion bord I decided to make some changes to the article in order for it to become more clear.

  • In a first step I enlarged the section on linguistic imperialism itself, including primarily Philippson's tenets
  • In a second step I included some criticism of the theory as well as counter criticism already present on the page. I feel this makes it more neutral. However, it took me quite some time to write the criticism/counter-attack so I was no longer logged in and they appear only with my IP address. I take full responsibilty for them, though.

Any comments/suggestions? --Daniel Spichtinger 17:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

At first, thank you for your work! At the moment I lack time to reread everything thoroughly. The overall impression is a good one. One (maybe pedantic) comment: "the domination of one language over others" should be expressed in another way; a language itself doesn't any harm --Titbit 12:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have rephrased the intro. However, there are two difficulties:
* linguistic imperialism is very very difficult to define in a short sentence. See the convoluted definition of English
linguistic imperialism in the article
  • some followers of li DO seem to regard the language itself as imperalistic, or at least that is one allegation levelled
against them

--Daniel Spichtinger 14:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This garbage does not belong in Wikipedia!

"Can something more concrete be built out of this rather generic whine?" The answer is clearly No. I'm sticking an NPOV tag on it. Actually, this article should be deleted, because it's the very crap that fuels the argument contra Wiki's open collaboration. Talk pages, fine, but not the articles! This is nothing more than some undergrad who's trying to score easy points with the politically correct academic hack he happens to be infatuated with. If we permit this garbage, then why not an article called, "The Evils of Popery" or French "Culinary Imperialism"? Wikipedia is NOT for polemic! To the author of this article: If you really need show your erudition on the subject, then place it in the article on Phillipson, the clown who cooked up the notion. And for God's sake, READ the article on NPOV and weasel words! — J M Rice 20:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Linguistic imperialism is a theory proposed by a reknown linguistics professor, Robert Phillipson, so I don't think it classifies as "garbage". I don't happen to agree with the linguistic imperialism theory so I edited the article and included a section called "criticism" (parts of my thesis include a critical review of linguistic imperialism).

However, I was reluctant to delete the pro-linguistic imperialism argument and tried to provide a balanced view by presenting both the pro and contra argument. For this reason I remove the "disputed" tag. However, I do think the balance between pro and contra may not be exactly right to I am thankful for constructive edits. However, bear in mind that one should try to satisfy both adherents and opponents of the theory. --Daniel Spichtinger 11:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only do you ignore the points I and others have made here, but you are also arguing from authority ("reknown [sic] linguistics professor"), which is NOT Wikipedia. The founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, said "Wikipepedia...is anti-credentialist." Linguistic imperialism is garbage on its face, because the term itself is prejudicial and implies an agenda, and agendas are inherently NPOV. I am not alone in my assessment of "Linguistic imperialism," as you can see from previous posts. "Balanced view" is not NPOV. See also Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. I suggested that if one insists on preserving this content, that it be folded into the Phillipson article. If this is not acceptable, I shall place a Vote for Deletion tag. Any attempt to remove such tags is considered vandalism. — J M Rice 21:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm utterly surprised. Such furious attacks against ... a theory? --Minur 12:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
By the way; I don't share your view that Daniel Spichtinger is arguing from authority. He tried to defend the dignity of a person you entitled "clown". I'm quite sure you wouldn't do so, if you knew him, but at any rate injury is not Wikipedia style. --Minur 12:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
You are "utterly surprised"??? It's not the theory but the fact that it's deemed worthy of an article that is at issue. There have to be limits as to suitability. Wikipedia may be free, but it's not anarchy. — J M Rice 18:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The statement that Linguistic Imperialism is valid because Philippson is a "reknown authority" is of course argument from authority. I'm not "injuring" anyone. Wikipedia is not a tea party or a self-esteem clinic. The fact that you choose to take offence instead of debating the merits is not Wikipedia style either and suggests that you really don't have anything to bring to the debate besides sanctimony. (Sorry if that offends you.) — J M Rice 18:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, Daniel, I see what you mean. After all, if there can be articles on ESP and UFOs, then why not Linguistic Imperialism? I withdraw my objections. — J M Rice 18:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post-POV

So the smoke has cleared and the article is still standing :)

I do feel the article requires some editing, the problem is how to do it without offending either adherents or opponents of the theory.

Personally I think the overal tone of the article is still somewhat too supportive of the theory, given the linguistic facts cited in "critism" so I believe a somewhat more critical tone to be warranted. What do the others say? --Daniel Spichtinger 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As a first step I have shortened the article, in particular the section outlining the theory, to achieve a better balance between the parts of the article.

--danielsp 17:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELinguistic_imperialism_986f.html"